Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2004 (8) TMI 325

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ellant was prevented by a reasonable and sufficient cause from furnishing the Form No. 26C within time and as such no penalty is exigible although the TDS was deposited well within the stipulated time and is thus, a technical and venial default. 2. The relevant and material facts for the disposal of the issue involved in these grounds of appeal, as borne out from the order of the CIT(A) are that the annual return under s. 206 in Form No. 26C for the financial year 1998-99 was due to be filed on 30th June, 1999. The assessee filed this return under s. 206 on 24th Aug., 1999 which was late by 54 days. Consequently, the Asstt. CIT, Ambala Range, issued a show-cause notice to the assessee-under s. 272A(2)(c) of the Act fixing the case for 20t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... a vs. Dy. Director of IT(E)(1997) 94 Taxman 31 (Bom)(Mag); in the case of Hindustan Steels Ltd. vs. State of Orissa (1972) 83 ITR 26 (SC); in the case of ITO vs. Anuradha Woollens (1998) 96 Taxman 147 (Chd)(Mag); in the case of ITO vs. Jai Bharat Hosiery (1990) 104 Taxman 256 (Chd)(Mag); in the case of Dy. CIT vs. Sahdeva Knitwears (2000) 111 Taxman 217 (Chd)(Mag); in the case of Dube Motel India (P) Ltd. vs. Jt. CIT (2001) 119 Taxman 165 (Mumbai)(Mag) and in the case of Manager, Indian Overseas Bank vs. ITO (2001) 119 Taxman 75 (Chd)(Mag). 2.2 The CIT(A) after considering these submissions of the assessee as well as the case law relied upon by the assessee, dismissed the appeal of the assessee and sustained the impugned penalty of Rs. 54 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... in levying the impugned penalty of Rs. 5,400 which is hereby sustained." 2.3 Before us, learned Authorised Representative for the assessee firstly reiterated the submissions which he made before the CIT(A) and while referring to paper book from pp. 3 to 9 submitted that the employee Shri Hargolal was assigned the duty for furnishing the return in Form No. 26 as well as for issuing the certificates of tax deducted at source in Form No. 16A but he did not perform his duties diligently and also did not put the papers promptly before the higher authorities on account of which the returns in Form No. 26C were filed late by 54 days and certificates were issued in form No. 16A after a delay of 90 days each, due to which the action against the e .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the case of CIT vs. Dy. Housing Commissioner (2002) 177 CTR (Raj) 591. 2.4 Learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue placing reliance on the reasoning given in the orders of the tax authorities below submitted that the citations given by the learned Authorised Representative for the assessee do not apply to the facts of the instant case of the assessee because the assessee has not been able to show a reasonable cause for the delay, and secondly placing reliance on the order of the CIT(A) submitted that the well-reasoned and well-discussed order of the CIT(A) analysing the case law referred to above by the learned Authorised Representative for the assessee, has rightly upheld the order of the AO in imposing the impugned penalty .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... onsible person and not that of its employee Shri Hargolal. Except the decision of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court, the citations relied upon by the learned Authorised Representative for the assessee are distinguishable on facts because in all these cases, sufficient cause was shown by the responsible person for late filing of the return and so, in those circumstances, it was held that in case the responsible person has deducted TDS and deposited the same in the treasury within the prescribed period, then the delay in filing of the return was only a technical fault because no loss of revenue was involved and hence, the penalty was not leviable. Whereas, in the instant case, we have already held that the delay in filing of the return has occ .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates